Carl Tobias Quotations

very articulate but sort of reserved, almost kind of shy. And so I think he is a very likable sort of person.

Sensenbrenner has been tough and stuck to his guns on past occasions. Maybe buying time will help.

She turned that to some constructive use. Once it happened, it probably made sense to make sure every group saw the same behavior and he cooperated.

She's trying to work a compromise that's reasonable all the way around.

She has tried as hard and she can to get this difficult case right, and then she is confronted with a blatant violation of the rules. She has been careful and cautious, but probably is thinking about some kind of sanction.

Most people watching this litigation closely thought that Merck ought to win it. Despite the characterizations by Merck so far, I think this was really a loss for them.

Most people predicted this but it wasn't a forgone conclusion.

More and more people who have been injured or think they've been injured come forward. It takes on a life of its own.

Negligence is much easier to prove; it's the failure to exercise reasonable care. Willful misconduct is a much higher standard. You must intentionally misbehave. ... The high standard would clearly discourage many suits.

Right now it seems like the uncertainty would make senators more circumspect with Roberts.

I don't believe somebody like Tom DeLay is going to take any chances by way of his representation, and his reputation.

I don't understand why that wasn't used. Congress has clearly provided for what was going on. It seems to be that that procedure should have been followed.

If the government does not so tie him, this may weaken the case in the jury's eyes.

His testimony could turn the jury against him.

He is saying as little as he needs to be confirmed and hasn't made many mistakes that trouble a majority of senators whose votes he needs.

I think it's pretty probable that the verdict would hold up. My sense is that the judge was pretty careful.

It is a strong endorsement. The question is: How relevant is it? Someone who was on the 3 rd Circuit for a decade and a half and has done a good job is likely to get this rating.

It is a momentous decision, and they need more time to think about it.

It depends on how extensively she was involved in policy making in her five years in the White House.

Juries frequently confront contradictory information, especially in criminal trials. Juries then must sort through all of the evidence, sift and weigh it, resolve the contradictions as best they can, and reach a determination.

That's the nub of this issue. Whether there is a pattern of unilateral executive action without approval or consultation with the other two branches of government.

Merck is trying to paint this as a tie, but it is really not so good for them because people thought they would have had an easy win.

The question is how high the liability shield needs to be. I think 'willful misconduct' is too high. We usually use some kind of negligence standard in these situations. It would be very unusual that you could prove that intentional misconduct had happened.

The question is, can they have their cake and eat it too?

The government may have overstated the dire circumstances going in. But when they actually came to prosecute the case, it didn't seem as dire or as strong a case when they came to the courthouse.

The government is going to lose a very good ruling to avoid having this go before the Supreme Court.

The tobacco industry has won some recent cases, and that Illinois case was a big one. But I think today's ruling is certainly a big win for the plaintiffs. And I think the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this appeal.

The witness whose testimony was struck was their first and perhaps their strongest witness, and so that could make it difficult going forward on the case.

The Supreme Court has not directly faced the issue of whether 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment.

Specter is the key, and then it comes down to moderate Republicans and where we were in May.

One case does not a whole litigation strategy make.

That's where Rehnquist was at his most vocal, ... He was always willing to fight for an independent judiciary.

This means the issue of whether you can hold a citizen 3 1/2 years without charges will likely be unresolved, which is of great concern to many.

There's a lot of pressure because of the concern there might be another terrorist strike in the United States.

It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person's case. I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil liberties and national security.

It was difficult for me to think of another situation where a court has said this to the government.

It was the intellectual elite of the conservative movement that expressed the most concern, not the religious conservatives or the business conservatives.

It's a warning to the extent the White House cares or listens.

It might give them pause to think they might be sued and hauled into court.

It's very difficult for Specter to thread the needle, because of all the obligations he has, ... There's substantial pressure on him because of the issue of reproductive freedom.

It's too early to tell. Some people believe that Roberts may be similar to Rehnquist in his jurisprudence, although that's not at all clear yet.

It still doesn't tell us where things stand.

It's quite natural for mass tort cases to proceed under multidistrict litigation.

It's probably the only thing that could prevent him from being confirmed right now, barring something coming from out of nowhere.

It sounds like a little bit of Russian roulette.

The next question is the New England Journal flap. It seems to erode their credibility.

It's still too early. We just don't have the patterns yet.

It's always unpredictable saying what the docket will look like in 10 years, ... It could be high-tech, biotech. ... If it were present-day issues, you'd have to take it case by case.

It's too soon to say Merck has momentum. Many people felt the Irvin case was a weak case to begin with. It was a short-term usage case.

They've said airport security was 50 percent of the case, and it was always a difficult case. So now it becomes doubly difficult.

His behavior is so erratic it's hard to know what his testimony will mean for his case. But he has a right to testify.

By and large, the court is very deferential to this administration and others before it.

If he had not testified, it seems likely the jury would have come in in his favor.

I don't think anybody today sees a reason for a filibuster, but they may after the hearing if the answers are troubling to them or they feel they haven't gotten the answers to important questions.

He anticipated an attack on him. I have a lot of respect for a judge who, presented with a difficult decision, admits it's going to be tough. He has discharged his oath.

The juries you draw in federal courts are more favorably inclined to institutional defendants.

All the survivors and families of people who perished on 9/11 will be called, and it's hard to imagine how to counter any of that.